Have other Biden family members commented on the diary allegations?

1. Ashley Biden’s own statement and legal filings: the core documented remark

The clearest public acknowledgment from the Biden family about the diary comes from Ashley Biden herself: in an April 8 letter to a New York judge submitted during sentencing proceedings in the theft case, Ashley wrote that she will “forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online,” a sentence fact‑checkers and news organizations cite when treating the diary as belonging to her ^{[1] [2]}. That letter was unsealed and covered in reporting on the sentencing of the defendants convicted of stealing and selling the items prosecutors say included her diary ^[2].

2. Prosecution and court records, not family-wide comment, drove coverage

Reporting about the episode centers on the criminal case—two defendants pleaded guilty to stealing and transporting property, including a handwritten journal, and prosecutors described motives tied to causing political harm—rather than a chorus of family statements ^{[4] [2]}. News outlets and fact‑checkers documented the chain of custody, Project Veritas’s involvement, and court testimony that Project Veritas paid for the material, but these sources attribute public, on‑record comments about the diary mainly to Ashley and to court filings rather than to other Bidens ^{[5] [3] [1]}.

3. What the press and fact‑checkers verified — and what they didn’t

Fact‑checkers like Snopes and outlets such as The Associated Press and Newsweek reported that circumstantial reporting and later Ashley’s letter supported the diary’s association with her, while noting that specific alleged passages circulating online have not been independently authenticated in every detail ^{[5] [6] [1]}. PolitiFact emphasizes the FBI did not confirm any particular salacious content; its notice about the FBI plea deal underlines that authorities did not validate diary contents as part of that announcement ^[4]. Thus, while Ashley’s ownership and the theft are well documented in court records and reporting, independent verification of every excerpt is uneven across the record ^{[1] [4]}.

4. Project Veritas, publishers and media outlets: alternate voices in the story

Coverage repeatedly highlights the role of Project Veritas and the National File in how the diary became public. Project Veritas employees are recorded in reporting as having provided the document to National File, and testimony indicates Project Veritas paid for material in the chain of custody ^{[5] [3]}. Those organizations and outlets that published excerpts have framed the release as investigative journalism or as a political act; prosecutors have said the theft and sale were politically motivated ^{[3] [2]}. These are competing framings that reporters cite: one side portrays publication as exposing private material, the other sees the sale and dissemination as criminal and politically driven ^{[3] [2]}.

5. Other Biden family members: absent on the public record in current reporting

Search results and reporting provided do not show President Joe Biden, First Lady Jill Biden, Hunter Biden, or other family members giving public statements specifically addressing the diary’s alleged passages or Ashley’s letter beyond general legal or campaign-era responses documented in contemporaneous coverage (available sources do not mention statements by other Bidens addressing the diary) ^{[2] [3] [1]}. When family dynamics are discussed, sources chiefly cite Ashley’s own descriptions of harm and court material about the theft rather than quotes from other relatives ^{[2] [6]}.

6. How to interpret these gaps and competing claims

The lack of on‑record comments from other Bidens means public understanding rests on Ashley’s court filing and on reporting about the theft, prosecution and intermediary publishers ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Fact‑checkers caution that existence and authorship of the diary are distinct from verifying particular passages, and the FBI’s public statements about the criminal case did not validate the alleged contents ^{[4] [1]}. Readers should weigh: documented legal filings confirm theft and Ashley’s ownership claim; disputes remain about how excerpts were handled, authenticated and framed by political actors ^{[2] [5]}.

If you want, I can assemble a timeline of the key public filings, prosecutions and media postings cited above to show when Ashley’s letter, Project Veritas’s involvement and the defendants’ pleas were first reported ^{[3] [2] [5]}.